Literature DB >> 12135545

Comparison of the mechanical behavior of the lumbar spine following mono- and bisegmental stabilization.

Thomas Zander1, Antonius Rohlmann, Constantin Klöckner, Georg Bergmann.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the mechanical behavior of the entire lumbar spine differs following mono- and bisegmental stabilization.
DESIGN: The mechanical behavior of the lumbar spine was studied using the finite element method.
BACKGROUND: Nonunion is somewhat more frequent after bi- than after monosegmental stabilization of the spine. Little is known about differences between the mechanical behavior associated with these procedures.
METHODS: A three-dimensional nonlinear finite element model of the lumbar spine with internal spinal fixators and bone grafts was used to study mechanical behavior after mono- and bisegmental fixation with and without stabilization of the bridged vertebra. Finite element analyses were performed to determine the influence of four different graft positions, five loading conditions, and six different pretensions in the longitudinal fixator rod. The following parameters were considered: the maximum contact pressure at the interface between the bone graft and vertebral body, the force transmitted by the bone graft, and the size of the contact area between the graft and the vertebral body.
RESULTS: Our model shows no clear differences between mono- and bisegmental fixation. Additional stabilization of the bridged vertebra exerts a partly adverse influence on the parameters studied. Pretension in the bridged region has a strong effect on the mechanical behavior.
CONCLUSIONS: The mechanical behavior of the lumbar spine after mono- and bisegmental stabilization is similar. Thus biological factors and the surgical procedure are probably decisive in determining the fusion rate. RELEVANCE: Knowledge of the mechanical behavior after stabilization of the spine may help to improve the fusion rate. Our results suggest that the mechanical factors studied have only a minor influence on fusion rate and that other factors, such as incomplete resection of cartilage plate and poor local blood supply, are more decisive.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12135545     DOI: 10.1016/s0268-0033(02)00040-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)        ISSN: 0268-0033            Impact factor:   2.063


  7 in total

1.  Comparison of the biomechanical effects of posterior and anterior spine-stabilizing implants.

Authors:  Antonius Rohlmann; T Zander; G Bergmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-02-17       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Antonius Rohlmann; Nagananda K Burra; Thomas Zander; Georg Bergmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-01-06       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Aberrant intervertebral motion in patients with treatment-resistant nonspecific low back pain: a retrospective cohort study and control comparison.

Authors:  Alexander Breen; Fiona Mellor; Alan Breen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-06-20       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Parametric equations to represent the profile of the human intervertebral disc in the transverse plane.

Authors:  J Paige Little; M J Pearcy; G J Pettet
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2007-08-21       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  One-stage posterior debridement, bone grafting fusion, and mono-segment vs. short-segment fixation for single-segment lumbar spinal tuberculosis: minimum 5-year follow-up outcomes.

Authors:  Zheng Liu; Weiwei Li; Zhengchao Xu; Xiyang Wang; Hao Zeng
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-02-07       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Posterior-only debridement, bone fusion, single-segment versus short-segment instrumentation for mono-segmental lumbar or lumbosacral pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis: minimum five year follow-up outcomes.

Authors:  Hong-Qi Zhang; Yu-Xiang Wang; Chao-Feng Guo; Ming-Xing Tang; Shao-Hua Liu; Ang Deng; Qile Gao
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-08-12       Impact factor: 2.677

7.  Compression and contact area of anterior strut grafts in spinal instrumentation: a biomechanical study.

Authors:  Antonius Pizanis; Jörg H Holstein; Felix Vossen; Markus Burkhardt; Tim Pohlemann
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2013-08-26       Impact factor: 2.362

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.